Are Atheist Delusional?

Note: [The use of the term “atheist” is not used, or intended to be used as a blanket statement. All atheist are not the same. This excerpt from one of my books is from a chapter on certain atheist types]

Are atheist delusional?

In debates with these atheist, I have heard the term “delusional” used to describe theist.
Ironically, the word better fits the atheist, by definition.

Definition, in psychiatry: delusion

[Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact]

Most atheist pitch the same tired speech…”there’s no evidence!”, like a broken record. Any attempt at all, or confrontation by theist to actually discuss their view will be resisted… just as the definition of delusion states.

Confrontation by theist will usually be met with a few imaginary rules, that they have made up (in their mind) to avoid the confrontation. Some atheist will cite logical fallacies, when the direct question that challenges the statement made by them doesn’t actually qualify as a fallacy.

Most atheist want to censor, and omit evidence types by claiming existence of another imaginary rule…one that omits all evidence types except one.

There is evidence for theism. There are also several different types of evidences.
[see scientism]
Scientism:

[Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth]

The problem with this is obvious. This debate is about a deity that has the ability to transcend time, and space…but most importantly has the ability to make choices.

Atheist ask for empirical evidence to be “handed to them” by the theist. This is only logical when debating inanimate objects. Inanimate objects do not have a choice, and can actually be “handed over”.

Empirical evidence has been given by God to those that ask for it with a certain attitude. Why would God give anything to someone mocking His name? The point remains, the only one that can and does “hand out” empirical evidence of God is God…I can’t hand anyone God.

As the definition of delusion states, this stance resist reason, and logic.

Atheism is full of circular reasoning, and double standard. Just as the definition of delusion states, there is no evidence at all to support the belief that “God is a myth”, and there is no reasonable argument for that belief.

When I say “reasonable”, I mean again by definition. What is reasonable, and/or the most probable, given the evidence presented. Atheist most often state that there is no evidence at all to support a belief in God. This is yet another false statement, that supports this stance as delusional, again by definition. Lets face it, there is evidence for God’s existence, whether anyone accepts it or not, (or as the definition of delusion states, whether anyone is resistant to reason or confrontation with these facts, or evidences… or not).

In other words, there is enough evidence to support the very large number of people’s claim to knowledge of a deity. Is it more probable to assume God doesn’t exist, given the testimony of so many that He does? The reason I state this is obvious. Testimony is evidence, and most atheist claim there is “no evidence”…Which brings me to this point…

These statements are true, and are direct confrontations for the points atheist most often infer:

1)Evidence can be empirical without being reviewed by anyone at all, period.
2)There is empirical evidence that supports the existence of God, whether anyone sees it or not.
3) There doesn’t have to be any empirical evidence at all in order for God to exist.
4) Empirical evidence can exist without being available to everyone. {the color blue is a good example}
5)There exist documented evidence types, such as historical, and archaeological, that support many Biblical accounts, and corroborate the eyewitness testimony of the Biblical writers. [This in turn has lead many intelligent, logical thinking people to the conclusion that belief in a God is more probable than not. While manyhistorians and scientist agree that there is sufficient evidence to make this determination, many atheist still insist that there is “no evidence at all”…again, as the definition of delusion states, they will resist any confirmation of these facts]
6) Eyewitness testimony is a valid form of evidence.

Atheist often claim that personal experience is not acceptable as an evidence type, or adequate for determination of reality. Ironically, any evidence at all they ask for will have to be experienced personally.

Things exist, such as mental telepathy, clairvoyance, and many other perfectly valid realities that science will never examine evidences of. For instance, what is termed “near death experience”, could be an actual death experience. Whether it is or is not can not be determined by the scientific method. Science would have absolutely nothing to base a study on. The atheist’ answer to this is interesting. They will cite experiments that record brain activity “during” an event, then without any evidence at all, claim that the brain caused the event. This brings me to the last point I will make in this installment:

In any discussion or debate, points of truth have to be established and agreed on by both parties…or there is no discussion.

Atheist often infer the points they make, instead of actually making a point.

This again allows them to avoid any confrontation of the point, and therefore avoid the questioning of it. The reason is obvious. If they were to answer any direct question that confronts their point (inferred or stated), it would expose a double standard. This in turn will derail any attempt at discussion, and again, as the definition of delusion states, avoid a confrontation. Here is an example of one of these inferences:

Statement: “personal experience isn’t enough to determine existence of God”
This infers that it is not possible for anyone to know for a fact that someone, or something exist by personal experience alone. Yet these same atheist know for a fact their mother exist, and I doubt they have had her examined at a lab.